Mahmood v Mitsubishi Electric Europe BV & Ors

Mahmood v Mitsubishi Electric Europe BV & Ors

The claimant's appeal against summary judgment in relation to MEE and MELCO is allowed as there is a real prospect of success regarding contractual claims, while the appeal against summary judgment in relation to MHI and CORP is dismissed as the factual basis for unjust enrichment is not sustainable.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Asif Mahmood; First Defendant/respondent: Mitsubishi Electric Europe BV; Second Defendant/respondent: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Third Defendant/respondent: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd; Fourth Defendant/respondent: Mitsubishi Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order
Outcome
Claimant's appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal by MEE and MELCO dismissed; appeal against summary judgment for MHI and CORP dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Consultancy Agreements, Unjust Enrichment, Quantum Meruit, Implied Terms
Contract Law Restitution Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Consultancy Agreements Unjust Enrichment Quantum Meruit Implied Terms

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asif Mahmood

Claimant/appellant

Mitsubishi Electric Europe BV

First Defendant/respondent

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

Second Defendant/respondent

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd

Third Defendant/respondent

Mitsubishi Corporation

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a real prospect of success in claims for contractual fees and restitution against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted or the claims should proceed to trial
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's services led to the award of relevant contracts to Mitsubishi entities

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's appeal against summary judgment in relation to MEE and MELCO is allowed as there is a real prospect of success regarding contractual claims, while the appeal against summary judgment in relation to MHI and CORP is dismissed as the factual basis for unjust enrichment is not sustainable.

Court Disposition

Claimant's appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal by MEE and MELCO dismissed; appeal against summary judgment for MHI and CORP dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim against MEE and MELCO in relation to the consortium contract and sub-sub-contracts to proceed to trial.
  • Claim against MHI and CORP dismissed by summary judgment.